Ron, can't a simple image resize make this work? I'd have to spend ten minutes to do it cuz I am old like you, but I think it is really a 30 second chore. I am not trying to be obnoxious. Find a kid to help. I am interested to see what your product looks like, too.

I regularly send very small file images to insurance companies with estimates, they show more than enough detail and look plenty clear. A normal cel phone picture is far higher quality than needed for this use.

Martin Benade wrote:I regularly send very small file images to insurance companies with estimates, they show more than enough detail and look plenty clear. A normal cel phone picture is far higher quality than needed for this use.

Suffice to say, what I wish to convey needs the resolution I prefer. Why it is not possible to post them here remains a mystery.
YMMV.

Until Ron gets out of bed in SF here is what he has made. Flexibility is provided by rubber o-rings and safety is provided by washers which will not allow the assembly to pull apart if the o-rings would fail.

I can post high res images taken with my iPhone with no problem and it looks like CJ can too. Perhaps you're having a different problem, although I can't imagine what. Nice looking product BTW.

Ron LaDow wrote:...Oh, and see that black square off to the left? That's what the Registry Site filter allowed of the shot of my Speedster. Informative, isn't it?

And I'm used to your solid black square. It's instantly recognizable as 'you' and very hard to miss as you scroll down the page. I always gave you credit for coming up with it as a great marketing tool...can't miss it!

First, I apologize for the temper tantrum, and specifically to Curt.
CJ, thanks for posting that, and I'll be a good boy today and re-size all the images to show what and why.
Emil, I'm using a Fuji 'point and shoot', and when I try uploading, I get 'exceeds (some limit) cannot accept', and I remain amazed that the site will not accept what comes off of one of those cameras.
Again, my apologies.

Emil,
Maybe there is such a feature on my camera, but I'm a better wrench than a photoger, so I 'adjust' the images in Paint on the computer.
Anyhow, this is the subject:
We want a bit of elasticity in the steering gear and here's where we started:

The scheme here puts metal connecting pieces in an elastic part. We got the elasticity, but we also have a part which can fail catastrophically if it isn't inspected regularly, and a lot of 356s no longer get that sort of attention.
So let's reverse the scheme and capture elastic inserts in recesses in sandwiched metal parts as shown in the one-hole test piece:

Actually, more than a couple of one-hole test pieces to get the dims correct, and then make a four-holer (if you will):

And then a little work on the lathe gets you:

By altering the lengths of the bushings, the same part will fit both early and late applications. This is the "early" fitting; the "flanges" are bolted to the short bushings.
Added by edit; got a question to my email:
Both length bushings are fitted to the part. They simply alternate on either side; short-90*-long-90*-short-90*-long. Which means the assembled part can be rotated to fit the "early" or "late" application.
Notice the long bushings are sized such that they cannot pull through, meaning that a complete failure of the elastic inserts will not allow the steering wheel to pull back and disengage from the linkage. Maximum axial movement on such a failure is ~.03"
Here's the "Late" fitting:

This has the "flanges" attached to the long bushings, thus making the part thick enough to serve in the later steering design. The washers on the short bushings serve to prevent pull-though, and per above, limit the axial movement during failure.
Baring some sort of atomic failure of the aluminum, this part is absolutely fail safe and will be the last steering coupler your car will ever need.
One final image (8/10/18):

Our chief Product Designer (cough, cough) is congenitally opposed to capturing electrical terminals in structural fastenings, so you'll notice the secondary nut, meaning that any crush of the ring-tongue terminal in no way affects the structural integrity of the assembly.

Parts are under contract, the aim is to have stock by late September and the price looks to be well under $150.
I hope you'll consider our product for your car.

Hi Ron do you think this part is safe in an accident? The original part has quite a bit of "give" built into it which allows it to deflect and possibly break during an accident which may be a beneficial side affect of having factory rubber style piece. Wondering if making it more rigid and unbreakable could cause injury to driver in side collision (ripping wheel from drivers hands) or head on collision pushing steering column shaft into driver or possibly causing more damage to steering and suspension components too?
Also would this system transmit more vibration to steering wheel?

Michael Foster
p.s. love your products and appreciate the work you do for us 356 people.

Michael,
There is no more 'give' in the stock parts than the Pre Mat part until they are long past requiring replacement. Hoping for a benign failure is hoping you have a very specific crash just before the parts were going to fall apart anyhow.
And neither the stock piece nor any of the replacements offer any help at all in a head-on collision, and shy of re-engineering the steering shaft entirely, there is no way to do so. There are some few advantages to having a car that gets backwards easily, and this is one of them.
You are far more likely to have a dangerous failure by many decimal points.
As to transmitting vibration, it is doubtful. All four bushings ride within 70-duro elastomer rings. I guess you might find some weird harmonic if a wheel were out of balance exactly this much at that exact speed, but like the benign failure, chances are probably better at the Lotto.
Thanks for the comment